But what if no one wants your information? I like to read the ideas of others but I resent being offered information in such a condescending way -- "for free." I would not pay for your information and neither do I want it for free. I am not much interested in information from Jesus Christ or Buddha. I have gleaned much from Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and Spinoza and Schopanhauer and others.

Despite my low IQ, I am very capable of gathering information. I think all of the posters here are so capable. For instance, if I want to read about Socrates, I can look him up on Wikipedia or I can read Plato. I do not require the feeding of Socrates or any other thinker.

There is nothing wrong with having a high IQ. I wish I had one just so I could score high on IQ tests and brag about it. But IQ has nothing much to do with one's ability to think -- first, as an individual, i.e., one who questions what is put before him; and, later, as one with little or no attachment to delusion.

I may be sparked to gather information from posts on this forum. But I -- like others here -- am not in need of having information spoon fed. That is condescending and presumptuous -- like you have superior intelligence and I, having inferior intelligence, require help from you.

That's crap. It's insulting. I have been thinking on philosophy for about nine years intensively -- not counting since I was a child and unconscious; on into my mid-forties.

I -- most posters here -- am fully aware of Socrates and his merit. Over several years, we have discussed his merit.

I cannot speak for others here on this but, personally, I have no interest in discussing twit for twat about this little thing or that little thing. This is what Nietzsche meant and what he did not mean. This is what Wieninger meant and did not mean. This is enlightenment and this is not. You don't post on Genius Right so you must be wrong. You are an ape beating his chest and I am not -- so I am better -- which makes me an ape beating his chest but, since I am such an ape, I will not admit it because I am a reasonable Buddhist.

I mean, the whole enlightenment battle turns into a big battle of ego and I find that wearying. Kind of like a perpetual IQ test. Trying to reach that big 180 in the sky.

That is why I post Down Under. I am not interested in the big thunderclouds upstairs. Let the gods butt heads and rumble. I do not require that sort of noise or gratification.

Philosophically, I know what I know. I have no big need to argue about it. I do not feel the need to prove it.

Wonderful if you have something substantive to write about what you get from Socrates but I do not need your information for free or for pay. I already have the information you offer, thanks.

you started hostile you see hostile you will remain hostile. think of a backalley painted on a sunny day with a hot apple pie cooling on a window sill. When I see that painting I see innocence, children laughing. Someone else can see the same backalley as a dangerous place. dark colors maybe some needles no apple pie. Every individual is a vast knowledge of a different reality. We are similar in a lot of ways and we assume we think a like. This illusion can not be trusted, you can not possibly put a label on everything you see because your investigation might fall short. If you mislabeled one thing are you willing to relabel your assumptions that depended on that one detail. Socrates was so right when he challenges everything and leave nothing to uncertainty.

I know everyone has an ego and I knew the reactions before I posted my I.Q.

I could of had a softer introduction and never dared to engage anyone. I could of used Chadwick's method and study the administrator of this group. Chadwick chose to appeal to his ego and blend into his reality the best he could. Looks like he miscalculated and manipulated the wrong individual or maybe not I will not make that assumption. Anyone telling me the I.Q tests are irrelevant have a message of relevance. I have given you the key to the test many times over. You can impress your friends with a legitimate 200 I.Q if you apply yourself.

You focus determines your reality. Individual reasoning is stronger than collective reasoning.
individual details can be endless without direction or a good look at the whole picture.

So to get to the point collective thinking is not wrong just not as accurate as individual thinking. So next time on the I.q test when you are looking at patterns pay attention to the individual patterns in relation to the overall.

Chadwick Stones crime is treason. Chadwick Stone works for insurgents.org.

Chadwick stocked psychiatric doctors to pave the way for pilll pushing pharmaceutical salesman pretending to be doctors. Chadwick stone interfered with an election campaign torturing the candidate sylvia sullivan. Chadwick is a candodate for death row. Does he have the right to worry about the information I used. Wikipedia is a resource for everyone and for me saves typing on a ipod.

Chadwick Stones crime is treason. Chadwick Stone works for insurgents.org.

Chadwick stocked psychiatric doctors to pave the way for pilll pushing pharmaceutical salesman pretending to be doctors. Chadwick stone interfered with an election campaign torturing the candidate sylvia sullivan. Chadwick is a candodate for death row. Does he have the right to worry about the information I used. Wikipedia is a resource for everyone and for me saves typing on a ipod.

Is this a typical example of the scholarly research, context, and overall conversational ability one would expect from another asserting an IQ of 180?

Chadwick Stones crime is treason. Chadwick Stone works for insurgents.org.

Chadwick stocked psychiatric doctors to pave the way for pilll pushing pharmaceutical salesman pretending to be doctors. Chadwick stone interfered with an election campaign torturing the candidate sylvia sullivan. Chadwick is a candodate for death row. Does he have the right to worry about the information I used. Wikipedia is a resource for everyone and for me saves typing on a ipod.

Is this a typical example of the scholarly research, context, and overall conversational ability one would expect from another asserting an IQ of 180?

teslacoils2006 wrote:The more one is conscious of the true nature of Reality, the more one is a genius. By this definition, people like Jesus, the Buddha, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Weininger, and Socrates were geniuses to greater or lesser degree.

I pullled this off your introduction and wondered if anyone

would like to discuss socrates...

jesus was crusified for what he believed in .

I too have been punnished by the group for stating my belief's and for discussing ideas. I do not dare exercise much truth here due to the harsh reaction already. I have been accused of talking about alluminati and freemason ry yet chadwick belongs to groups that are alluminati.

dialectic method of inquiry, largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts

How do we discuss key moral concepts whith Chadwick Stone when his objective is to drive insanity into your group. I posted the wikipedia article so that you can learn about dialectic reasoning and protect yourself from chadwick. I am trying to tell you using socrates method and providing proof that Chadwick Stone can not use socrates methods because it would reveal flaws he does not want you to know about. He has claimed I plagierized the article yet I have not claimed the article as my own. The article was posted as a weapon against provocateurs Chadwick Stone knows because I have used the article before in groups where Chadwick has manipulated people. I use my I.Q no matter how hated it is here to reduce him to a harmless fool. Chadwick Stones bosses believe in eugenics and choose war as the method of delivery. In order to make war work Chadwick bosses need your support. Chadwicks bosses will destroy the leader of this group and they will assign an understudy to teach you a knew enlightenment. Every chat group face
this demise because you no longer want to here the truth....

just go to alt.alaska in google and you can see what's left of Sylvia Sullivan's political debate club. Go into the archives and be prepared to see Chadwick Stones enlightenment.

No-one here other than a couple of people cares about the Freemasons, the Illuminati or whether Chadwick works for the Carlyle group. I appreciate your concern for our welfare but it isn't necessary. We're more than capable of thinking for ourselves. Genius Forum has had to deal with any number of ratbags over the years. They come and they go and we remain. The only thing that matters to me is the quality of contribution to this forum. All this crap about who members are and what their motives are for being here is just too tedious for words. Chadwick has no ability to hurt us, even if that was indeed his intention, and that doesn't necerssarily follow from what you've posted.

If you want to discuss something like the Socratic method feel free to post a thread in the main forum. So long as it doesn't descend into peripheral bullshit like this thread did, it will stay there.

And please can you guys heed what I recently said about proper tag use when posting long urls.

Look at me -- I am a shape-shiftin' dinosaur. My IQ is now 340. I am smart as hell -- smarter than Tom Cruise. In a mere two seconds, I went from borderline retarded to super genius. I am marvelous. I know everything. My intelligence is far beyond anything that can be tested on a IQ test.

My REAL essence is serpentine. I am a lizard without feet. My great grandfather founded a college in Alabama that was attended by Condileeza Rice's grandfather. By sheer coincidence -- or Lizard/Illumanti Plan -- this great grandfather was also the great grand uncle of George W. Bush. So, you see the Negro tie-in.

It's natural for George W to want to raise up the Negro. In his blood.

So, given the fact that my IQ is 340 or above and that I am clearly an ancestral Illuminati -- blood cousin to George Bush -- with ancestral connections to the Secretary of so called State, what do you want me to do with this simpering Carlyle Groupie, Chad-Hick?

Clearly, your intent is character assasination. Being a blood descendant from the line of Bush, I am especially good at that sort of thing.

So, name your poison. But, first, can you provide your credentials?

Your Socratic pose was clever but not that clever. I caught on pretty quick for a slow person.

Chad:I will not try to define enlightenment because I'm sure that it means different things to different people.

Dan: How does that stop you from defining it? If you can talk about it you must have some idea what it means to you..

Chad: Enlightenment to me is the gift of being able to gain insight and use that insight to solve problems.

But doesn't the notion of "intelligence" cover that? And insight into what? What genre of "problems" are you referring to? I know I'm being picky but what you said seems too nebulous to me.

Chad: However, I feel qualified to assert that a key element of enlightenment is to remain teachable.

Dan:[...] "teachable" with respect to what? The mundane features of life or what is ultimately true of Reality?

Chad: Teachable as in willing and able to learn.

Ok, but learn about what? Everday practical matters or things of a more ultimate nature? If you mean the former then sure, I agree. But with respect to the latter the enlightened person has nothing more to learn. That's part of what enlightenment is - knowledge of what is ultimately true.

Chad: No one person knows it all, no one person is right all the time,

Dan: Ok, but are you speaking here about everyday, empirical, contingent facts of life, or that which is true of reality in an absolute sense?

Chad: I'm speaking of knowledge in general. There is no one person who is capable of amassing all knowledge.

Sure, that's impossible by definition.

I am unsure what you mean by "or that which is true of reality in an absolute sense."

By that I mean the matters about which philosophy is formally concerned. Matters pertaining to Ultimate Reality. Once these are understood, because they are principles rather than contingent facts, there is nothing more to learn. Once you understand things such as the relativity of all finite things, that all things are caused, that Reality is infinite, that God doesn't exist etc, there's noting more to learn about such matters. One simply functions on the basis of the consequences of such knowledge.

Chad: and if one is truly enlightened then they will recognize their own flaws and inevitable mistakes and failures, prepare for them as best they can and learn from them when their preemptive preparations fail.

Dan: What kind of flaws are you refering to?

Chad: Some examples include compulsions to deceive, steal, even murder.

Well, ok, those are pretty serious flaws!

Such compulsions would likely be viewed as character flaws in an organized society, but granted, it is based on contemporary societal norms. I must concede that the reverse would be true within a "gang" culture where sociopathical activity is espoused as a badge of worthiness for membership.

Well, yes, but character traits that are demanded of one's own group are never demanded against one's perceived enemies. You can deceive and steal from and even kill them, because, well, they are bad and probably deserve it. Probably Iraqi.

But what about more subtle forms of character fla such as egotism, willful ignorance. Don't you think those are entirely widespread and essentially give rise to all other flaws?

Proof of what, Teslacoils? I saw no evidence of employment, no payslips, no EFT transactions, no job titles, no job descriptions, no evidence of criminal activity... What I see are links to lengthy posts without pertinent information highlighted, a fixation upon my name, and a preoccupation with conspiracy.

Allow me to post something of Nietzsches possibly pertinent to this play

24. O sancta simplicitiatas! In what strange simplification and falsification man lives! One can never cease wondering when once one has got eyes for beholding this marvel! How we have made everything around us clear and free and easy and simple! how we have been able to give our senses a passport to everything superficial, our thoughts a godlike desire for wanton pranks and wrong inferences!--how from the beginning, we have contrived to retain our ignorance in order to enjoy an almost inconceivable freedom, thoughtlessness, imprudence, heartiness, and gaiety--in order to enjoy life! And only on this solidified, granitelike foundation of ignorance could knowledge rear itself hitherto, the will to knowledge on the foundation of a far more powerful will, the will to ignorance, to the uncertain, to the untrue! Not as its opposite, but--as its refinement! It is to be hoped, indeed, that LANGUAGE, here as elsewhere, will not get over its awkwardness, and that it will continue to talk of opposites where there are only degrees and many refinements of gradation; it is equally to be hoped that the incarnated Tartuffery of morals, which now belongs to our unconquerable "flesh and blood," will turn the words round in the mouths of us discerning ones. Here and there we understand it, and laugh at the way in which precisely the best knowledge seeks most to retain us in this SIMPLIFIED, thoroughly artificial, suitably imagined, and suitably falsified world: at the way in which, whether it will or not, it loves error, because, as living itself, it loves life!

25. After such a cheerful commencement, a serious word would fain be heard; it appeals to the most serious minds. Take care, ye philosophers and friends of knowledge, and beware of martyrdom! Of suffering "for the truth's sake"! even in your own defense! It spoils all the innocence and fine neutrality of your conscience; it makes you headstrong against objections and red rags; it stupefies, animalizes, and brutalizes, when in the struggle with danger, slander, suspicion, expulsion, and even worse consequences of enmity, ye have at last to play your last card as protectors of truth upon earth--as though "the Truth" were such an innocent and incompetent creature as to require protectors! and you of all people, ye knights of the sorrowful countenance, Messrs Loafers and Cobweb-spinners of the spirit! Finally, ye know sufficiently well that it cannot be of any consequence if YE just carry your point; ye know that hitherto no philosopher has carried his point, and that there might be a more laudable truthfulness in every little interrogative mark which you place after your special words and favourite doctrines (and occasionally after yourselves) than in all the solemn pantomime and trumping games before accusers and law-courts! Rather go out of the way! Flee into concealment! And have your masks and your ruses, that ye may be mistaken for what you are, or somewhat feared! And pray, don't forget the garden, the garden with golden trellis-work! And have people around you who are as a garden--or as music on the waters at eventide, when already the day becomes a memory. Choose the GOOD solitude, the free, wanton, lightsome solitude, which also gives you the right still to remain good in any sense whatsoever! How poisonous, how crafty, how bad, does every long war make one, which cannot be waged openly by means of force! How PERSONAL does a long fear make one, a long watching of enemies, of possible enemies! These pariahs of society, these long-pursued, badly-persecuted ones--also the compulsory recluses, the Spinozas or Giordano Brunos--always become in the end, even under the most intellectual masquerade, and perhaps without being themselves aware of it, refined vengeance-seekers and poison-Brewers (just lay bare the foundation of Spinoza's ethics and theology!), not to speak of the stupidity of moral indignation, which is the unfailing sign in a philosopher that the sense of philosophical humour has left him. The martyrdom of the philosopher, his "sacrifice for the sake of truth," forces into the light whatever of the agitator and actor lurks in him; and if one has hitherto contemplated him only with artistic curiosity, with regard to many a philosopher it is easy to understand the dangerous desire to see him also in his deterioration (deteriorated into a "martyr," into a stage-and- tribune-bawler). Only, that it is necessary with such a desire to be clear WHAT spectacle one will see in any case--merely a satyric play, merely an epilogue farce, merely the continued proof that the long, real tragedy IS AT AN END, supposing that every philosophy has been a long tragedy in its origin.

I think the only problem Nietzsche could have had with Goethes genius was that he never met the man!